Member Rick Levin shared this photo October 20th: of the ‘progress’ on Cadence in the Great Park.
Class 2 Bike Lanes being replaced with Class 4 Cycle Tracks by the City of Irvine.

Opinion and Call to Action by Bill Sellin, Ride Coordinator and also serving on the
Infrastructure Review Committee of the Orange County Bicycle Coalition and as the
Area Director on the California Association of Bicycle Organizations for Caltrans District 12,
City staff, politicians, their appointees and many of their constituents are fully enthused about going with ’protected bike lanes’ all over Irvine.
Bill thinks they create more problems than they avoid; trading a fear of traffic without understanding that being visible and part of traffic is safer than being separated and then placed in conflict with traffic.

The City of Irvine Transportation Committee will be hearing comments and staff reports on the plans to narrow travel lanes on Irvine roadways to calm traffic and allow space to add buffers to existing bike lanes or remove the bike lanes and instal cycle tracks at their regular meeting on September 3rd.

Motorists may be there to loudly complain about any attempt at slowing down their vehicles, and cyclists who are afraid of bike lanes will clamor for ‘protection’ but there needs to be voices of cyclists who don’t want cycle tracks to also be heard -
PLEAsE attend and support narrowing travel lanes, but ask the city be realistic about Class 4 vs Class 2 bikeways.

Class 2 Bike Lanes are subject to the CVC and are mandatory use.
The State minimum width is only 3 feet between the edge of the gutter pan and the stripe. The County standard calls for 8 to 10 feet which works better for right turning traffic to use it. ”Buffered” Bike Lanes (BBL or “Class 2B”) are those where extra paint has been added as an island between the bike lane and the travel lane. Painting a buffer helps make the bike lane more obvious to motorists, but still allows us to merge out to pass slower traffic, to avoid hazards and debri, and to clear the ‘gutter lane’ at intersections and driveways where right turning traffic might overtake and ‘right hook’ us.
We may use the buffer to pass or ride in, but vehicles are not supposed to drive on them except when turning or parking, and hopefully yielding to us if and when they see us …
We are seeing new buffers added on many street in Irvine over the last year.
The California DOT says a minimum buffer can be as narrow as 18” (1.5 ft) and the long standing buffer on University (see picture below) is a full travel lane width. The buffer may also be painted in the door zone of parked cars when a painted as Door Zone Bike Lane (DZBL) - or on both sides of the bike lane as a Double Buffered Bike Lane (DBBL).

Class 4 Cycle Tracks (“separated bikeways”) are seperated with obstacles from bollards to curbs to lines of parked cars. (see pictures of local examples below) They promise more “comfort” from traffic but they create real hazards. They look great mid-block - which is how they alway picture them, but the intersections, driveways and actual movement are problems unless there are just well spaced bollards that we can weave in and out through:
You can not escape to the travel lane to pass a slower cyclist in the cycle track, or to avoid debri, glass, or other hazards if the barrier is solid as proposed on South Yale.
You can not merge left to the travel lanes to make a left turn as we do from bike lanes.

Without complete intersections, or traffic circles at every intersection, they are keeping us in the far right gutter lane when regular traffic may turn right - setting us up the classic and common ‘right hook’ crash that we avoid by merging out of the gutter lane where vehicles might turn right.

The traffic on a road, and street sweeping clears bike lanes of small debri, but a cycle track does not benefit from the regular traffic wind and regular full sized street sweepers can’t fit - so Irvine will have to invest in a special narrow street sweeper that may sweep out gutter lane less…

California has 4 classes of bikeways: Class IV is the newest option…

Typically disingenuous ‘marketing’ graphic showing all 4 classes of bikeways under California law. It shows a Class 1 side path, set back at least 5 feet from the street and with 2 foot clear at grade shoulders on both sides… shows a worst case Class 2 DZBL, A Class 3 Bike Route (not all get sharrows marked on them - Laguna Canyon Highway 133 is a Class 3 Bike Route) and the class 4 cycle track. Extend these mid-block views to intersections, driveways and multi lane roads and you could see better how they really compare… and the problems with Cycle Tracks in most locations.
Source: https://issuu.com/katreyes/docs/pa795_finalcapstone_spring2021_equityincycling_wit/11citing Caltrans as the source of this graphic. The Class II / 2B - 2B indicates ‘buffered’ : BBL although the image shows a worts case DZBL with no buffers.

Examples across Orange County:

Class 2 BBL Irvine - Southbound University Avenue is a 4 lane road but the south bound side was built wide enough for 3 lanes; the bike lane is buffered with the widest buffer we know of. Of course, being in Irvine, the bike lane is wider than the State 6 foot minimum, there are no Bike Lane signs to be seen, and the posted speed limit (despite the curves and the bike lane) is sparsely posted at 55 mph.

Class 2 DBBL Irvine - Hearthstone was a 3 lane road with standard bike lanes but some time before Jan 2019 on-street parking was added on the northbound side and the bike lane took the space of the NB #2 travel lane: It is a Double Buffered Bike lane (DBBL) - with the space between the bike lane and the travel lane diagonally hatched as a typical buffer, but also has a buffer between the bike lane and the parking lane. This keeps cyclist out of some of the ‘door zone’ and is the best option for a door zone bike lane (DZBL), although the door zone should be at least 3 feet and the bike lane is wider than needed inviting confused motorists to occasionally drive in it. Of course in addition to the dooring hazard, each parked car must merge across the bike lane to park or pull out, but the cyclist is visible to motorists driving alongside, rather than hidden behind the parked vehicles. Irvine, so no speed limit or Bike Lane sign is posted. The old BIKE ONLY marking is being replaced with current standard markings as streets are being resurfaced.

Class 2 BBL Newport Beach - MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach is way ahead of Irvine in adding buffers to existing bike lanes; these buffers were added before June of 2017 and look about 3 feet wide. Note how despite the buffer, vehicles still drive in the right half of their very wide travel lane, right along the buffer. Narrower travel lanes make room for a wider buffer and calm traffic speeds. Posted speed here is 60 MPH despite the bike lane. Because there ar eno driveways and few intersections, some of this segment might warrant consideration of a Clas s4 - but why? Every intersection would require shifting to a Class 2 and the sidewalk option should make a ‘comfortable’ option for the traffic averse. (Newport Beach, unlike Irvine, PROHIBITS cycling on sidewalks EXCEPT when, like here - the wide sidewalk is designated as a sidepath “Bike Route”.

Class 4 w/BOLLARDS Costa Mesa - Merrimac Way was a 4 lane street with a minimum standard bike lane - now a 2 lane street with a bollard separated cycle track. Speed has remained at 35 mph. Costa Mesa has not yet removed the old tiny sized Bike Lane signs, even though this is no longer a bike lane. CalTrans has still not come up with a sign to post on a Cycle Track.

Class 4 w/ISLANDS Santa Ana - Bristol Street had 6 wide travel lanes and a wide sidepath but despite many intersections and driveways, all 3 travel lanes were narrowed to fit in a narrow island with a separated Cycle Track. Note that that island has a gutter pan on BOTH sides so the pavement between gutter pan joints is less than 3 feet. Santa Ana posted new Bike Lane signs, even though this is not a bike lane. Cyclists (and eBikes) still ride with the pedestrians on the side path (wide sidewalk) and some cyclists still prefer sharing the #3 travel lane over posted 40 mph over the narrow Cycle Track.

Class 4 w/PARKING Santa Ana - Hazard Avenue had 4 lanes and on street parking. It now has a parking separated class 4 that wobbles in and out of a Class 2 buffered Bike Lane and then reduces to a 2 lane Class 3 bike route with sharrows. The parked cars are supposed to ‘protect’ the cyclists, but they are hidden and invisible behind the parked cars and a surprise at every driveway and intersection. the people that park there walk in and across the Cycle Track to reach their vehicles, and passenger side dooring is now a real concern. Garden Grove also added new Bike Lane signs even though this is not legally a Bike Lane.

Join me in
SUPPORT of narrowing travel lanes AND LOWERING POSTED SPEEDS
SUPPORT of Buffers if the width is taken from the travel lanes - NOT THE BIKE LANE
SUPPORT of keeping bike lanes 10 to 8 feet wide as the County Highway Design Manual requires, not the 6 foot minimum called for by the State of California standards on street posted over 40 MPH.

I DO NOT SUPPORT Class 4 cycle tracks for all the reasons discussed above. The cost alone could go a long way to improving pavement, curb cut width, wayfinding signage, conflict zone marking and other infrastructure that would make cycling better for all of us.

Irvine requested a letter of support on their plans for YALE:

BILL said no on behalf of BCI.

Hi Bill,
This is Derek Meksavanh from the City of Irvine. I recall in the past, Cheryl Lea reached out regarding the Yale Corridor project, including a stakeholder meeting in October 2022 (attached is a PDF for reference). I am reaching out now to request a Letter of Support for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), for the safety improvements on Yale Avenue, as determined through the outreach process. We kindly request support from BCI, as this project significantly enhances the pedestrian and bicycle environment with safety improvements.
The proposed project is located on Yale Avenue from University Drive to 350ft north of Michelson Drive (highlighted in yellow in the map below). The project area was identified as a priority through extensive community outreach efforts. Among all community outreach efforts, students and residents emphasized the importance of improved multimodal safety and connectivity along Yale Avenue.
The City aims to apply safety countermeasures and enhance safety through improvements such as implementing landscaped buffers and protected bike lakes in each direction, a pedestrian crosswalk with new rectangular rapid flashing beacons - connecting the community paseos, restricted on-street parking near Rancho San Joaquin Middle School to improve safety, new streetlights, and bicycle crossings with the addition of dedicated signal phases for bicyclists at the Yale Avenue and University intersection, connecting the University Trail. The City aims to bring the concepts and planned designs to construction to enhance safety and connectivity, with HSIP being the next step toward achieving this.
The City would greatly appreciate BCI's support in providing a letter of recommendation for this Project's grant application. The application is due on 9/9, but we are submitting a week prior to this deadline. If this works, may we receive a signed letter by Thursday, 8/29?
Attached, please find a draft letter for ease. Please feel free to make changes as appropriate and reach out to any of us if you have questions. Thank you again for your time and continued cooperation.

SoUTH yale project

Bill Sellin, as Ride Coordinator declined in this reply:

Hi Derek,

Normally we would be happy to, and the OC Bicycle Coalition also weighs in with support, but this project is not supported.

I, for one, would rather see these competitive and limited resources better spent in a grant to another worthy project in Orange County, than see it wasted on this one.

We were asked when the demonstration was laid out, as well as at the community meeting at University Park, but our minority position in resistance to this project as proposed was not heard then, and may not now, but we would rather support real improvements in pavement quality and consistent marking of Bike Lanes across Irvine, especially at every freeway intersection, or get round-a-bouts at Yale and Yale Loop, than this plan as presented or moving forward.

Unless there are complete intersections, the creation of narrower Class 4 cycle tracks in place of the existing wide Class 2 bike lanes is not a real safety feature.

The separation of cyclists into a narrow curb-bound path may look fine in the middle of a block, with only 1 or 2 single-file cyclists in it, but in actual use it makes it dangerous by putting cyclist out of the way - inconsequentially invisible, separated in the gutter, and the common 'right hook’ crash hazard is actually increased.

The reason a Bike Lane is dashed at corners or extended left of a right turn only lane is to reduce the conflict zone for cyclist safety.

The last 50 feet before a corner, right turning motorist are required to merge into the shared bike lane and turn from that right most lane.

Safe cyclists will merge out of the bike lane to give space for motorists to merge in behind and turn right when the cyclists are going straight.

Your selected image of the Cycle Track in Santa Ana in your presentation shows how obviously the Cycle Track makes right hook conflicts warrant conflict zone paint and significant trust that the cyclist is even seen by turning motorists.

Adding a second gutter pan and reducing the Bike Lane width for a Cycle Track will make it harder to avoid road hazards, debris, pass slower cyclists or be able to merge out when desired, like to make a predictable left turn in traffic.

Riding on the pavement between the gutter pan and stripe is tight with the State’s 3 foot minimum. Reducing the existing bike lane AND taking another 2 feet of pavement away for the gutter pan of the island is a real reduction of space.

Street sweeping between the curbs may require special equipment and the light debris that now is blown along by traffic ‘wind’ will collect in the Cycle Track.

Cyclists who start riding in the travel lane (Cycle Tracks are not subject to the mandatory use laws of Bike Lanes) will no longer be able to merge into the bikeway if they wish to between intersections.

…and then there are Irvine’s drivers of "out of class" illegal eMopeds and eMotorcycles, many with out a drivers license, who will drive down these Cycle Tracks at well over 20 mph or even against traffic as they do now in Bike Lanes - with no way to merge out to pass the bicyclists these bikeways are intended to serve..

We would certainly support:

• Wide painted buffers like we have on SB University; much more cost effective and could also reduce the travel lanes & speeds of motorists.

• Having the REMOVED bicycle signal returned for NB cyclists to cross from the NB University Class 2 - and return the REMOVED signal request button that was there - would help allow cyclists to travel on the predictable and legally required correct side of the road rather than using the pedestrian crossing only available on the south bound side and then typically riding up Yale on the wrong side of the street. A short side path to get to the button out of the bike lane could be located behind the guard rail. We would welcome the signal phasing for a bicycle cross-bike at University - but serving connection to BOTH sides of Yale from the University Biek path in Mason Regional Park.

• Splitting the Class 1 bikeway off the bridge at the north end of the segment, along with pedestrian separation. That would properly address the south bound cyclist being fed into the wrong side of the street as currently configured.

• Adding a landscaped center divider, like the ones added to slow down Michelson, rather than two islands, at twice the price.

• If Irvine really wants to spend limited funds, we would strongly support replacing the stop intersections with round-a-bout traffic circles at Michelson and Yale, as well as Royce and Yale to reduce speeds, conflict points and make safer traffic flow.
That would make it safer for ALL road users. You could even try to model a more expensive ‘Complete Intersection’.

• Making Royce and Yale a 4 way stop - with high contrast crosswalks. Or adding an on demand flashing pedestrian signal like across Michelson to the shopping center. The crossing now is unmarked and the vertical curve of Yale makes it hard to see small children crossing there now. Turning left or crossing on Royce across high speed Yale traffic, when it occurs, can be challenging for a cyclist.

• Putting a 2 way Class 1 Bike Path along the west side of Yale, in addition to the sidewalk, and in addition to the on-street Bike Lanes and complete with grade separation over University, Royce and Yale if you are serious about making Yale a primary bicycle corridor. THAT would serve the ‘8 to 80 year olds' your consultant thinks will use the corridor and provide true separation from traffic that a Cycle Track cannot accomplish. Taking some of the right of way to do this would also meet your desire to narrow the travel lanes to reduce speeding.

We really like and feel comfortable cycling on this segment of Yale as it is,
with wide Class 2 Bike Lanes that exceed the State Minimums and meet the Orange County Highway Design Manual 8 to 10 foot Bike Lane standard.
Reducing the width and thwarting our ability to merge into the travel lane, would be a very real detriment to our safe and legal road use.
We would likely take the travel lane and not use the Cycle Track if this project is ever completed.

Your description of the plan as including a “Protected Bike Lane” reveals your subscription to the false marketing bias of Separated Cycle Tracks as always being better than a Bike Lane in every situation.

California Standards do not use the term “Protected Bike Lane" for good reasons. Bike Lanes have specific legal standing and rules in the California Vehicle Code that do not apply to Cycle Tracks.

Maybe they have advantages in some specific locations, but not this one.

Attached is a comprehensive guideline on how to implement them successfully compiled by the San Diego Bicycle Coalition;

Respectfully,

Bill Sellin BCI#2
Bicycle Club of Irvine
Ride Coordinator
rides@bikeirvine.org

Here is another expert opinion: CyclingSavvy.org How-to-ruin-a-buffered-bike-lane